East and Southern Africa Annual Review and Planning meeting

1-5 October 2012
Ngurdoto Mountain Lodge, Arusha, Tanzania
Back to the event agenda page

---

Day 3 - Wednesday 3 October

Presentations by Bernard van Lauwe and Asamoah Larbi and Q&A

• Q: Do we start with Research Output (RO) 1?
• A: Yes but we are partly working on RO2 at the same time here due to the planting season.
• Q: What about RO3?
• A: We’re not waiting for RO2 to finish before we start with RO3, there are concurrent activities but we put more focus on some (RO 1 & 2) than others (RO3).
• Q: Under RO2 we talk about evaluation of technology, how different is it from the ‘ex-ante potential of technology’ under RO1?
• A: Under RO1 we just have a hunch but we check it thoroughly in RO2 'evaluation of technology'.
• Q: About water and soil. Water alone is a different aspect e.g. irrigation etc. In intensification, water is an important element because it provides different options for farmers. Irrigation allows cash crops. Are we only interested in soil moisture?
• A: Water is very important.
• Q: The shaded area implies that farmers have all aspects.
• A: The shaded area could just combine three one-way interactions (e.g. crop-livestock, crop-soil, livestock-soil etc.)
• Q: I am concerned that we are not including market dynamics etc. in this.
• A: I agree. When looking at RO2, we are looking at integrated improvements in the system. This is about a combination of technologies but where does market fit?
  • Economics should be underpinning this work.
  • Let’s not forget markets! Seeds are driven by markets. Investments to include seeds!
  • This is very good. When you have the 3 components, the other issues such as markets etc. come together.
  • We know system productivity is low. Which practices can improve system productivity? We need all aspects (e.g. markets, institutions) etc. to make this work. This is what you are managing at farm level.
• Q: There are risks that we miss out on other aspects e.g. post-harvest issues. We have a system that allows the integration right from the beginning.
• A: Bernard presented the whole framework. This is just to zoom in on research output 2 which is about improving integrated system. This is following up on Bernard’s presentation. It’s not about improving cow peas, livestock etc.
• Comment: Once we look for examples on the ground e.g. Nafaka it will become clearer.
• Comment: AR is unique but this is an intriguing way to go beyond business as usual. We’re talking about the framework. How are we going to get down to the details: what’s on the ground?

Presentation Nafaka (by Joe Tindwa and Powerpoint presentation by Joseph Rusike)

Our entry point in all districts is farmer groups, farmer associations. For the past 9 months we have observed the following: There is a high gap between actual and potential yield of rice and maize. There is great potential in terms of soil etc. Production is not going as anticipated. We have established the following results through demonstration: expected yield was 1.2 ton/acre but after intervention, this has been improved to 2.5 ton and in Vormero it has improved from 2.5 to 3.7metric ton per acre.
Lower yields are the result of lack of knowledge – no good agric practice taken care of by focus farmers. They don’t use certified seeds, fertilizers, herbicides etc. After intervention, things have improved.
Use of seeds, affordability etc.?
Lack of capital to invest in the yield / productivity.
We are working with farmers and identified a lot of bottlenecks requiring scientists to work on solutions and let us go back to farmers with the intention to increase productivity, income, health, livelihood.

Martin insists that it should be the highest cooperation between Africa RISING and Nafaka.

• Comment: Nafaka is also working on cow peas and other crops.
• Q: How to combine interventions in an integrated way? Perhaps this is an opportunity now.
• A: Yes, there are gaps. Crop production system work is expected. We can combine our work.

Developing action plans

In the next session, participants split themselves in 5 groups: crop-soil (2 groups), crop-livestock, rice-based integrated systems, Research Output 1. All groups but the latter had to identify: a) what combination of technologies would potentially fit in this system (bearing constraints in mind)? b) what tangible research activities should we undertake to see if our combination fits the system and what to do NOW c) Who should be part of the research team (disciplines and institutions/individual scientists? d) Who should we partner with beyond the research team e.g. NARS, NGOs, private sector etc. - all the while, keeping in mind the work from the day before and cross-cutting issues (markets, institutions, information/communication)...

Research output 1 group

1.1 What methods will we use? We need to identify the drivers for testing SI:

• Market access (distance to terminal market) e.g.
  • Maize - Kibaigwa,
  • Legumes - Dar-es-Salaam
  • Goats: Dar-es-Salaam
  • Cattle: Dodoma
• Population density: human density and livestock density
• Agro-ecological potential
  • Maize/rice-based
  • Maize/rice-confined livestock grazing
  • Maize/rice-free grazing
  • Mostly livestock
• Secondary data: LSMS (Living Standard Measurement Surveys) 2008-2010, GIS secondary data, Ministry of Agriculture of Tanzania.

1.2 Action site selection

• Villages have been selected in Tanzania (guided by stratification work)
• Counter-factuals to be validated - they need to be visited.
  • Secondary data: GIS coordinates for rainfall data --> Mateete to get GIS data for Bernard (CIAT)

1.3 Household typologies

• LSMS 2008-2010-2011. Secondary data. Nigeria, Malawi, Tanzania
• Participatory approaches
• Baseline surveys
• Focus group discussions
• Triangulize - LSMS - baselines
• Typologies, land, labour, livestock, knowledge.

1.4 Identification of entry points e.g.

• Delphi methods
• Expert opinions and estimates
• Surveys for households
• Scoring methods - congruence
• Econometric modelling: producer and consumer surplus
• Ranking
• Valuing other outcomes: environment, gender, equity, nutrition (DALYS)
• --> Alioune Diagne, Humid tropics 1.2, identified entry points and who will be addressing what.

1.5 Inventorize innovations:

• Conceptual framework
• Jump start projects
• CRP portfolio
• Outcome of ESA R&P meeting
• + Categorize innovations
  • On the shelves
  • In pipelines
  • in use by farmers
  • Indigenous knowledge
• + characterization
  • By domains
  • By HH typologies / domains

1.6 Ex-ante potential of options

• Physical input/output relationships (production functions) - Modelling
• Confirmation by stakeholders (R4D platforms)

1.7 Priority setting and plan for integrated systems improvement

• How to better integrate options into typology-specific bundles?

1.8 Program-wide synthesis and co-learning

• Formal M&E process
• Results of hypothesis testing at program level
• Co-learning at R4D platform level --> Use Outcome Mapping to measure behaviour changes

Examples of domains:

• Agro-potential
• Maize livestock / rice-based systems (pop density)
• Value chains (markets)
• Characterization by applicability e.g. soya bean VC
• Type 5 household (poor)
  • Intercrop soy maize for household consumption
  • Small grain variety / grain quality
• Type 2 (rich):
  • Large grain
  • Seed viability is not an issue
  • Processor demand
  • Mono-cropping affordable
  • Use of inoculant, fertilizers, fungicides
  • Mechanization

Comments, Q&As:

• Who, how and when we take responsibility on the surveys needs to be discussed...
• Q: Drivers of intensification; Have we identified who (farmers or else) are concerned with market access? If we are dealing with farmers typologies we need to look at resource access and quality.
• A: We didn't rank the drivers. If you look at the program document, it considers population, market and agri-ecological potential. But after the last 2 days we might want to work only on areas with potential market access. The access or not will be developed at typology level. Population density: looking at the areas, we are considering different systems, all relatively high. Population may be low in intensive grazing areas. Translating these domains into
• Q: In terms of typology etc. will you also be determining potential at household level (the poorest being unable to intensify)?
• A: Yes we'll target them. Some technologies are suitable for those households. We try to differentiate and target technologies for them. In a basket, a technology will be assessed ex-ante as potentially addressing needs. We should allow interest groups to select technologies.

Crop-livestock group

Conceptual framework (see picture).
Better inputs, improved income/nutrition and food security --> crop production --> livestock production --> more animal produce (eggs, milk, meat, skin). Interaction with soil and water through more and better quality manure.

Intensive livestock systems:
What combination of technologies?

• Dual purpose legume crops and tree/shrubs for ruminant and non-ruminant animals.
• Village level poultry and crop production for meat and eggs.
• On-farm feed formulation using locally available crops and trees/shrubs.

What to do now?

• Draft a protocol for implementation.
• Find out if seed/planting materials are available...

Extensive livestock systems:

• Pasture management

Livestock-crop-soil:

• ??

Cross-cutting issues:

• Ensure that they are integrated
• Seed and fertilizer

Comments / Q&As:

• Q: You always put farmer organizations as partners but they should play more important a role.
• A: Not having them in the research team doesn't mean that they don't have an important role. We need to clarify this further.
• Q: On feeds, there is a CIAT project.
• A: We are linked with CIAT and ILRI already.
• Q: What about pasture management?
• A: We could improve the system and don't take enough advantage of crop-livestock interactions. We thought shrub-tree/livestock interactions would be an easier entry point. There are opportunities to import seeds etc.

Rice-based integrated system group

About the combination of technologies, we thought it was useful to re-assess the important constraints and came up with these 'big five' constraints for rice and vegetables:

• For vegetables:
  • Input
  • Pests & diseases
  • Water access
  • Post harvest
  • Market
• For Rice:
  • Weeds
  • Pests
  • Soil fertility
  • Water
  • Post harvest

Combination of technologies:

• Community-based seed and seedling systems
• Integrated crop management
• Water management (water use efficiency-enhancing technologies)
• Harvest and post-harvest handling
• Markets (including food quality and safety standards)

Comments, Q&As:

• Comment: Involve professor Mao(??) from Sokoine University.
• Q: What do you mean with dedicated markets?
• A: The idea is to organize direct relationships between farmer groups and markets. By cutting the middlemen we increase inputs.
• Q: Is this ???
• A: We felt we would integrate everything from the onset and thought the technology combinations would address both at the same time. We didn't have any one from ILRI so it could still be improved with their inputs.
• Comment: The ?? CRSP would be a natural partner. --> Yes good idea. Although they have only 2 projects. But we are looking into expanding into. --> There is a ?? CRSP project on post-harvest so we expect cooperation around that domain,.

Crop-soil group 1

We stepped back and looked at broad areas to look at interfaces:

• Intercropping and rotation, depending on agro-ecol zones with health advantages of legumes and spatial arrangements.
• CA and water harvesting with intercropping/rotation with grain and legumes.
• Erosion and water management
• Soil health
• Integration of tree shrubs on farm
• Grain legumes in the system
• Cover crops/weeds
• New varieties for food grains and legumes
• IPM
• Systems modeling for climate change and prediction.

Comments, Q&As:

• Q: In CA zones, if pop is too high etc., if you have too much livestock, you have problems.
• A: We work in Kiteto and we talked to the partners in our jumpstart project. In that zone livestock is so high but there is some crop residue left. Every farmer in Kiteto complains about livestock in their field. But Kiteto is unique. --> Maybe we can have a hypothesis to test.
• Comment: In this project we could be more innovative with baby trials.

Crop-soil group 2

We started with 5 different agro-ecologies and ended with humid, sub-humid and semi-arid and listed crops involved there.
Choice of varieties: adapted varieties, grain legumes with high HI, climbing beans (high altitude), temporal and spatial crop arrangements, soil fertility and nutrient management, foliar application of micronutrients, responding to farm typologies and domains.
NRM: soil and water conservation, land rehabilitation.
Our combination: appropriate varieties + cultural practices etc.

Comments, Q&As:

• We have been developing some work around human and animal traction.
• This exercise brought us a big step forward but there's a lot of ideas - whether we can do all of that is unsure. We need to screen. And what about now-now activities? We need to get going. Who is doing what etc. is something we need to address.

Next steps

• We expected a work plan from this meeting but this was probably ambitious. For me the next steps would be to use these ideas to form ToR and work with research teams to develop the actual work plans. For Tanzania we have been pushed by the planting season. We have to do sthg in the field this year. We are going to institutionally form the teams. Some of you are around and you should be ready to be called back. We have to ensure we are in the field by November.
• What we have is a shopping list. I am not sure we have enough resources to do it all. We have to prioritize in a step-wise manner. Some will be done this season, some next year. This process will be continued by the research teams to move forward. That is what I wish.